Early Pottery in South China

Transcription

1 Early Pottery in South China TRACEY L-D LU introduction In this paper, early pottery is defined as ceramics dated to approximately 10,000 years ago or earlier, which have been discovered from the Japanese Archipelago, the Russian Far East, the Yellow and the Yangzi River Valleys, to South China (Tables 1 and 2). Pottery discovered in the Japanese Archipelago are dated to between 15,000 and 12,000 years ago (Tsutsumi 2000), or even up to 17,200 b.p. (Kuzmin 2006); those found in the Russian Far East are dated between 13,300 and 12,300 years ago, or 16,500 14,100 b.p. (Kuzmin 2006; Zhushchikhovskaya 1997). Potsherds found in North China are dated to between 12,000 and 10,000 years ago (Guo and Li 2000; Zhao et al. 2003), those found in the Yangzi River Valley are dated probably up to 18,000 years ago (Boaretto et al. 2009), and pottery found in South China is dated to approximately 12,000 years ago (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003). It seems that pottery was manufactured by di erent groups in di erent natural and cultural contexts at the end of the Pleistocene or the beginning of the Holocene 1 in various places of East Asia, although it is not clear whether pottery was invented in one center or in multicenters. There are many hypotheses on the origin of pottery, including the architectural hypothesis, the culinary hypothesis, which proposes that pottery was invented for cooking cereals and/or shells, the resources intensification hypothesis, and the social/symbolic elaboration theory (Rice 1999:5 14). However, prehistoric pottery manufactured in di erent natural and cultural contexts usually di ers in terms of morphology, function, and symbolic meanings. Thus, it is necessary to carry out an in-depth and contextualized analysis in order to understand the impetus for, and the consequences of, this technological development in different regions. In North China, potsherds dated between 12,000 and 10,000 years ago have been found in three archaeological sites, namely Hutouliang and Nanzhuangtou in Hebei Province, and Donghulin near the present Beijing City (Table 1; Guo and Li 2000; Yan 2000; Zhao et al. 2003). Detailed reports of these sites have not been published. However, based on available data, the archaeological assemblages of the three sites apparently are not the same. Tracey L-D Lu is a Professor in the Anthropology Department of The Chinese University of Hong Kong Shatin, N.T. Hong Kong. Asian Perspectives, Vol.49,No.1( 2011 by the University of Hawai i Press.

2 site location Hutouliang E, N Donghulin E, N Nanzhuangtou E, 39 N Table 1. Early Pottery Found in the Yellow and the Yangzi River Valleys type of vessel forming methods thickness of walls inclusions color decoration and marks 14 C date (b.p.)* Potsherds only, flat bottom No data No data Sand Yellowish red Plain or nailpressed mark 11,870 G 1720** Potsherds, pot? Slab building? No data Crushed quartz Brownish red Mainly plain, occasionally with relief 10, Pot and jar, some with charcoal No data cm Crushed shell and quartz Gray or brown Cord-mark, relief, occasionally incision 10, (Continued) associated archaeological discoveries sources Flaked stone tools, microblades Flaked and ground stone tools, bone implements, animal remains and shells, burial, hearths Stone, wood and ground organic artifacts, animal bones and shells Guo and Li 2000; Tang 1997 Zhao et al Guo and Li 2000

3 Xianrendong, Diaotonghuan E, N Yuchanyan E, N Potsherds, round- and flat-bottom vessels Potsherds reconstructed to a fu Slab building, then coiling Slab building? cm Up to 2cm Crushed, un-sieved quartz or feldspar Charcoal, crushed quartz and sand Dark, reddish or grayish brown Mixed dark brown and red Marks of plants, notching lips, and punctuating from the inside out Cord-mark on interior and exterior sides 13,500 Stone and 11,800 # bone artifacts, rice phytolith, and shells 13,503 11,252, or approximately 18,000? Stone and bone artifacts, rice, animal bones, and shells, etc. MacNeish et al. 1998; Zhang 2000 Boaretto et al. 2009; Yuan 2000 * Calibrated by applying Calib3 program (Stuiver et al. 1998). ** This is a thermoluminescence date, tested by the laboratory in the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Tang 1997). # Dates suggested by MacNeish et al

4 site location Niulandong E, N Miaoyan E, N Zengpiyan E, N type of vessel Potsherds, roundbottom fu and pot? Plain potsherds Potsherds, roundbottom fu only in phase I; fu and pot in phase II Table 2. Early Pottery Found in South China forming methods thickness of walls inclusions color decoration and marks Hand pinching? cm Crushed quartz and sand measured up to 0.9 cm No data No data Charcoal and coarsely crushed quartz Dark brown to black Grayish brown Cord-mark or plain Plain; some bear charcoal residue on the surface Pinching/ drawing Up to cm at the early stage Crushed calcite and quartz of varying sizes Grayish brown Cord-mark on interior and exterior; appliqué and incision later occurred (Continued) absolute date (b.p.)* 10, Circa 15,000? 12,000 10,000 associated archaeological discoveries sources Stone and bone artifacts, rice phytolith, and shells Flaked pebble tools, shells, and animal bones. Stone and bone artifacts, burials, and shells Yingde City Museum et al Chen 1999 Fu 2004; Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003

5 Dayan E, N Fired clay and plain potsherds; a roundbottom fu. Pinching 2 3 cm Crushed calcite and quartz of varying sizes Red or grayish brown Plain; one bears charcoal residue on the surface Circa 12,000 10,000 Liyuzui E, N Potsherds, one vessel foot No data cm N/A Red and black Cord-mark Circa 10,000 Dingsishan E, N Potsherds, roundbottom fu No data 1 cm þ Coarse calcite particles Grayish yellow surface, dark or dark brown interior Cord-mark and appliqué Circa 10,000 * Dates suggested by the excavators of the assemblages as radiocarbon dating in limestone areas is problematic. Flaked pebble tools, ground bone artifacts, burials, shells. Stone and bone artifacts, shells. Tektite and sandstone tools Fu 2004 He 1988; Yuan 1993 Fu 2004

6 6 asian perspectives. 49(1). spring 2010 Discovered on a terrace of the Sanggan River in Hebei Province, North China in the 1990s, the Hutouliang ceramics are fragments of flat-bottomed vessels fired in very low temperatures and without decoration, associated with microblades, microcores, flaked stone implements, ornaments made of shell and antler, bones of wolf, wild horse, boar, deer, ox, wild goat, and several species of rodents, as well as the remains of three hearths (Guo and Li 2000). The potsherds have been proposed to represent fragments of containers dated to around 11,000 years ago (Guo and Li 2000). Found in the late 1980s and dated to approximately 10,000 to 9000 years ago, the Nanzhuangtou potsherds consist of two di erent types of pottery, although both are fired at low temperatures. The first type is crumbled and grayish with crushed tiny pieces of shell and quartz as inclusions, and cord-mark or appliqué as decorations, while the second type comprises yellowish brown potsherds of relatively more solid walls without decoration (Guo and Li 2000). Other findings at Nanzhuangtou include stone grinding slabs and rollers, ground bone arrowheads, drills, and the remains of deer, rodent, wolf, bird, fish, tortoise and shells, as well as two pits and two hearths (Guo and Li 2000). Charcoal remains have been found on the surface of some potsherds (Guo and Li 2000), indicating a possible cooking function. Stone and organic artifacts similar to those found in Nanzhuangtou, plus flaked stone tools and shells, large quantities of deer bones and shells, traces of a hearth, and a burial, were found in Donghulin in the 1990s (Zhao et al. 2003). Probably built by slab building with quartz grains as tempering agent, the plain Donghulin potsherds have been dated to approximately 10,000 years ago (Zhao et al. 2003). Apparently, potsherds found in the above three sites in North China are associated with two di erent stone toolkits. While the Hutouliang pottery is associated with the microblade tradition dated from the terminal Pleistocene to the Middle Holocene in North China, the Japanese Archipelago, and Northeast America (i.e., Gai 1991; Smith 1974), the Nanzhuangtou and Donghulin potsherds are discovered together with grinding slabs and rollers, as well as other stone and organic implements, but without the microblades. Obviously, early pottery was produced by prehistoric groups using di erent toolkits, although it is not clear at this stage whether the di erent toolkits indicate di erent subsistence strategies. A similar phenomenon can also be observed in Japan, where early pottery decorated with appliqué is associated with two major lithic traditions, namely the microblade tradition and the bifacial-flake tradition, the latter sometimes with edge-ground axes (Ikawa-Smith 1976:513). In North China s context, the microblade tradition is a toolkit primarily for hunting-gathering activities, but microblades with grinding slabs and rollers may indicate a broad spectrum subsistence strategy with the possibility of developing into cereal cultivation (Lu 1998). However, while the Hutouliang lithic assemblage seems to suggest that the group primarily lived on hunting and gathering, the presence of pottery, if really serving as a storage facility, might suggest a certain degree of sedentism. As the Hutouliang excavation report has not been published, further discussion is not possible at this stage. Grinding slabs and rollers, on the other hand, were often used by people collecting and/or cultivating grass seeds in prehistoric North China (Lu 1999, 2006).

7 lu. early pottery in south china 7 Although details of the Nanzhuangtou and Donghulin sites are not yet available, the toolkits found in the two sites suggest that grass exploitation might have been part of the subsistence strategies, while the burial at Donghulin with grave goods indicates the possibility of sedentism. Early pottery has also been found in Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan in Jiangxi Province, Yuchanyan in Hunan Province, and Shangshan in Zhejiang Province, all located in the Yangzi River Valley (Table 1; Jiang and Liu 2006; Yan 2000). The potsherds of Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan are dated to more than 12,000 years ago (Zhang 2000), the Yuchanyan potsherds, previously dated to between 12,320 G 120 and 14,810 G 230 years ago (Yuan 2000), have now been dated to 18,000 years ago (Boaretto et al. 2009), and the Shangshan potsherds are dated to approximately 10, years ago ( Jiang and Liu 2006). Xianrendong, Diaotonghuan, and Yuchanyan are all cave sites, and the stone toolkits found in these sites consist of both pebble tools and small flaked tools made of quartz, flint, and crystal. Large quantities of terrestrial animal, fish, and bird remains have been found in the three sites, as well as rice phytoliths (Yuan 2000; Zhang 2000; Zhao 1998). Zhao (1998) has argued that the early Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan occupants were rice collectors, and the succeeding occupants became rice cultivators, while Yuan (2000) also argues for rice cultivation at Yuchanyan. Shangshan, on the other hand, is an open site located on a small mound in the Yangzi Delta. Discovered in 2001 and excavatedsincethen,thesitehasyielded pits, postholes, flaked stone tools, stone balls, grinding slabs, and pottery vessels with rice husks as inclusions ( Jiang and Liu 2006). It has been argued that Shangshan was a sedentary site and rice was domesticated ( Jiang and Liu 2006). It seems that early pottery found in the Yangzi River Valley were produced and used by prehistoric groups, who were probably rice collectors and/or cultivators. While early pottery found in the Yellow and the Yangzi River Valleys might have facilitated grass seed processing and consumption, which in turn accelerated extensive grass-seed collection as a prelude to cultivation (Lu 1999, 2005), pottery found in the Russian Far East might have related to fishing and fish oil processing, and those found in the Japanese Archipelago might have been used for cooking various food ingredients and processing nuts (Ikawa-Smith 1976; Tsutsumi 2000). In summary, early ceramics were manufactured and used, more or less contemporaneously, by groups living on diversified subsistence strategies in geographic regions from cold-temperate, temperate, and subtropical to tropical ecozones in prehistoric East Asia after the Last Glacial Maximum, and served various functions (Lu 2005), manifesting the diversity of human cultures adapting to di erent environments. It is also worth noting that the early pottery in North China and the Japanese Archipelago occurred after the florescence of the microblade tradition, the latter exemplifying not only a technical development of e ciently utilizing natural resources for tool making, but also a broad-spectrum subsistence strategy, including the collection of nuts and/or wild grasses, in the period between the terminal Pleistocene and the early Holocene (Ikawa-Smith 1976; Lu 1999, 2005). In North China, early pottery is also associated with grinding slabs and rollers. All these are important cultural changes in the transitional period from the terminal Pleistocene to the early Holocene in East Asia (Lu 1999, 2005). Further, the

8 8 the natural context In this article, South China refers to the present administrative areas south of the Five Mountain Range, consisting of the present Guangdong, Guangxi, Fujian, and Hainan Provinces, and the two special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau (Zhang and Fu 1997) (see Fig. 1). Generally speaking, this is a subtropical to tropical landmass, with a precipitation of over 1600 mm, and very rich and diversified natural resources (Zhang and Fu 1997). Geographically, both the northern and central areas of South China are hilly with limestone bedrocks and caves, but the southern part is quite flat. The Pearl River, which is the major water resource in this area, runs through the southern part of South China (Fig. 1). In the northern part, there are several small rivers and streams, like the Zi River and the Hongshui River, which are tributaries of the Yangzi and the Pearl River, respectively (Fig. 1). These rivers are channels for human diaspora and cultural exchange within South China and between South China and adjacent areas. Since the 1980s, many scholars have been working on the prehistoric environment and human exploitation of natural resources in this area. Pollen analysis has been conducted at the Niulandong, Miaoyan, Zengpiyan, and Dingsishan archaeological sites, as well as in other natural deposits in Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan Provinces (i.e., Chen 1999; Lu 2003a; Yuan et al. 1999; Zheng 2000). Stalagmitic analysis has been conducted in several caves in northern South China. Animal remains discovered in several caves also provide useful information. The results of these analyses indicate that, after the Last Glacial Maximum, the climate in South China gradually became mild and warm (Liu 1997; Lu 2003a, 2008; Zheng 2000). There was a sudden cool change at around 11,000 years ago comparable to the Younger Dryas in Europe, but the temperature increased and reached a similar level to that of the present by 10,000 years ago (ibid.). Evergreen and deciduous trees, various species of fern, and the grass family have been found in both natural and archaeological deposits dated from 12,000 years onasian perspectives. 49(1). spring 2010 occurrences of early pottery in so many geographically and climatically di erent regions in East Asia may suggest prehistoric human diaspora and/or cultural exchanges, which is an issue requiring considerable in-depth typological studies and NAA analysis of pottery in the future. Undoubtedly, early ceramics found in all the above sites are very important, and those found in the Yellow and the Yangzi River Valleys might have related to the origin of agriculture. However, details of the aforementioned archaeological sites in the Yellow and the Yangzi Valleys have not been published. Therefore, this article will focus on the natural and cultural contexts, the chronology, and the characteristics of the early pottery found in South China dated to approximately 12,000 10,000 years ago, and the driving force and significance of the origin of pottery in respect to the prehistoric cultural developments in South China and adjacent areas. Although pottery in South China may not be the earliest in terms of absolute dates, it illustrates the process of the origin and development of pottery in the prehistoric epoch in this region in terms of both manufacturing technique and typological evolution. Thus an analysis of the early pottery in South China will provide new insights for our understanding of the origin and development of pottery in East Asia.

9 lu. early pottery in south china 9 Fig. 1. Archaeological sites mentioned in the text: 1. Xianrendong, Diaotonghuan; 2. Yuchanyan; 3 5. Dayan, Zengpiyan, and Miaoyan, all in the present Guilin City; 6. Niulandong; 7. Liyuzui; 8. Dingsishan. ward, many of which bear edible seeds, nuts,stems,leaves,orroots,orcanbe used for medical treatments or textile manufacturing (Lu 2003a, 2008; Zheng 2000). Remains of tubers, including taro [Colocasia sp. (L.) Sohott], have been discovered in cultural deposits dated from 12,000 to 7000 years ago in the Zengpiyan cave by flotation and starch residue analysis, although a more precise identification of wild or domesticated species is not feasible (Lu 2003b; Zhao 2003). Flotation and pollen analysis suggest that there were more than 20 genera and/or species of plants, including Asian plum (Prunus mume Sieb et Zucc), Alchornea, hickory (Carya sp.), wild grape (Vitis sp.), Castanopsis, bamboo (Bambuscideae), legumes (Leguminosae), crucifers (Cruciferae), several other species of the grass family (Gramieae), pine (Pinus sp.), acorn (Quercus sp.), soapberry and soapnuts (Sapindus sp.), tree ferns (Cibotium sp.), and a few species of ferns available to prehistoric peoples (Lu 2003b, 2009a; Zhao 2003). These plants would have provided edible parts, being tubers, fruits, leaves, or seeds, in di erent seasons to prehistoric people in South China. Zooarchaeological studies conducted at Niulandong, Miaoyan, and Zengpiyan also manifest very rich animal species in the region. Based on published data, the most commonly found species in archaeological deposits in South China are several species of deer and freshwater shellfish (Yingde City Museum et al. 1999; Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 1999) (Table 3). At

10 Table 3. Fauna of the Terminal Pleistocene in Northern South China species english name zengpiyan i zengpiyan ii miaoyan niulandong habitat and characteristics Invertebrate Unionidae Freshwater clams Rivers, streams, and ponds Unio douglasiae þ þ þ Cuneopsis subceltiformis sp. þ Cuneopsis zhenpiyanensis sp. þ Lamprotula obovata sp. þ Lamprotula leai þ þ þ Lanceolaria grayana þ þ þ Lanceolaria fruhstorferi þ Pseudodon resupinatus þ Margaritiana sp. þ þ Corbiculidae Clams Corbicula obtruncata sp. sp. þ Corbicula oabunca þ Viviparidae Freshwater shells Cipangopaludina chinensis þ þ Cipangopaludina chinensis fiuminalis Cipangopaludina chinensis longispira þ þ þ þ þ þ Bellamya sp. þ þ þ Viviparus sp. þ þ Decapoda Crab þ Rivers,streams,andponds Total intertebrate Vertebrate Pisces Fish þ þ Rivers,streams,andponds Cyprinidae Carps þ þ Chelonia Trionychidae Softshell turtles þ þ Rivers, streams, ponds, and wetland (Continued)

11 Aves Birds þ þ Ardeidae Ardea sp. Heron þ Anatidae Anser sp. Goose þ Phasianidae þ Gallus sp. Wild chicken þ Phasianus sp. Pheasant þ Corachformes Eurystomus cf. orientalis Eastern broadbilled roller Aves indet. þ þ Mammalia Mammals Insectivora Insectivores Crociduras sp. þ Rivers, streams, ponds, and wetland Chiroptera Bats Caves Ia io þ Hipposideros armiqer þ Primates Hylobates sp. Gibbon þ Subtropical forest, lowland, and hills Macaca mulatta Short-tail macaque sp. sp. þ " " Rodentia Apodemus Field mouse þ Various: steppe, dryland, etc. Microtus brandtioides þ Micromys cf. Minutus Eurasian harvest mouse Rattus sp. Rat þ þ þ Human commensal Rattus cduardsi þ Niviventer fulvescens Chestnut whitebellied rat Hystrix brachynra subristata þ þ sp. þ Subtropical area þ þ (Continued)

12 Table 3 (Continued) species english name zengpiyan i zengpiyan ii miaoyan niulandong habitat and characteristics Atherurus sp. Rat þ þ Rhizomys sinensis Bamboo rat þ þ sp. sp. Subtropical bamboo stands Leporidae Various: steppe, forest Lepus sp. Hare þ þ þ þ Mammalia Mammals Carnivora þ þ Canidae Ailuropoda melanoleuca Giant panda þ Bamboo and forest fovealis Ursus thibetanus Black bear þ þ Moist deciduous forest Arctonyx collaris Hog badger þ þ þ Forest up to 3500 m elevation. Weight 714 kg Viverra sp. Oriental civet þ Forest, bush/meadows. Weight 5 11 kg. Lutra sp. River otters þ Freshwater rivers and streams Panthera tigris Tiger þ þ Forest to savanna. Panthera sp. Leopard þ Various Vulpes sp. Fox þ Hilly/forest areas Mustela sp. Polecat þ þ þ Steppe Viverricula malacensis fossilis Rasse þ Forest, bush/meadows. Weight 2 4 kg Paguma sp. Masked palm civet þ (Sub)tropical forest Felis temmincki Gold cat þ Various Felis microdus Small wild cat sp. sp. sp. þ Nyctereutes procyonoides Raccoon dog þ þ þ sp. River valley, forest, and steppe Meles meles Badger þ Forest and densely vegetated areas Artiodactyla Bovinae Bubalus sp. Bu alo þ þ þ Moist bush/forest Bison sp. Ox þ (Continued)

13 Cervus unicolor Sambar þ þ Various. Prefer wooded area. Weight kg Cervus nippon Sika deer þ þ Forest/grass. Weight kg Cervus sp. A Large deer þ þ Woodland of temp. subtropical. Weight kg Cervus sp. B Medium-sized deer þ þ Cervus sp. C Small-sized deer 1 þ þ Cervus sp. D Small-sized deer 2 þ Lijiangocerus speciosus Lijiang deer þ Hydropotes sp. Chinese water deer þ (Sub)tropical river/lakeside or grassy mountains Pseudaxis sp. þ Muntiacus muntjak Muntjac þ þ Forest/dense vegetated areas with water Caprinae indet. þ Capricornis sumatraensis Sumantra serow þ sp. Rugged mountains/forest ridge/bush Sus scrofa Wild boar þ Forest Sus sp. þ þ þ þ Total vertebrate Total species 33* 34* 30** 37*** Sources: Chen 1999; Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003; Zhang et al * Only species found in the first and second phases of Zengpiyan are listed here. A total of 47 species of shell, 20 species of bird, 37 species of mammal, plus fish, etc., have been found in the whole stratum at Zengpiyan, totaling 108 species. ** There are four layers in Miaoyan but the cultural chronology is not reported. The species listed here are from the whole stratum. *** Only mammals have been reported for the Niulandong Cave.

14 Table 4. Comparing Pottery Vessels and Associated Archaeological Remains in the Yangzi River Valley and South China the yangzi river valley south china sites/date pottery types associated archaeological remains sites/date pottery vessels associated archaeological remains Xianrendong Cave, pre-ceramic, 18,000 14,000 b.p.? Xianrendong, 13,000 b.p.? Transitional? Yuchanyan Cave, 13,000 12,000 or 18,000 b.p.? Shangshan, open site, Zhejiang, 10, b.p.? Not present Flaked pebble tools, small lithic flakes, pierced shell and ground bone implements No restorable vessels Pebble and small lithic Round-bottom fu, walls up to 2 cm thick; inclusions charcoal and quartz; cord-mark on interior and exterior Fu, pot,bigbasins with flaring up from a small and flat bottom; some with cord-mark, stamping, and incision flakes, ground bone and pierced shell tools, rice phytolith, shells, animal bones, etc. Pebble and small lithic flakes, ground bone and pierced shell implements, rice husk and phytolith, shells, animal bones, etc. Flakes and pebble tools, some ground tools; remains of pile holes, rice phytolith, grains, etc. Dayan Cave, Phase I; Upper Palaeolithic, 15,000 b.p.? Dayan Phase II, 13,000 12,000 b.p.; transitional period Dayan, Phase III, Zengpiyan Phase I, Miaoyan, 12,000 11,000 b.p.? Zengpiyan Phase II, Dingsishan Phase I, 10, b.p. Not present Flaked unifacial pebble tools, small amount of animal bones and freshwater shells Two pieces of fire clay Round-bottom fu by hand pinching, walls up to 3.6 cm thick; cord-mark wiped out Fu and/or roundbottom pot; slab building; inclusioncalcite; cord-mark; appliqué and incision Pebble tools, ground bone and pierced shell tools, shells, wild animal bones, two flexed burials without grave goods Pebble tools, ground bone and pierced shell tools, shells, wild animal bones and plants; rice phytolith Pebble tools, ground bone and pierced shell tools, shells, wild animal bones; tektite flakes found in Dingsishan (Continued)

15 Pengtoushan and Bashidang b.p. Zaoshi and Hujiawuchang b.p. Tangjiagang b.p. Daxi b.p. Plant as inclusion; fu and round-bottom pot, stand, plate, bowl, basin, dish, andtripodvessels; hand pinching and slab building Fine pottery; white, grayish white, and painted pottery; plate with ring foot, pots, fu, basin,dish, bowl, lid and stand Fu, pot,urn,basin, plate, high-footed cup, bowls, tripod vessel, stand and lid Fu,pot,jar,basin, bowl,plate,etc. Flaked and ground stone tools, rice grains, domesticated (?) pig, ox, and chicken, wild animal and fish bones, houses/village, burials with stone or pottery as grave goods; protective ditch Ground stone axes, knives, adzes, chisels; rice remains, domesticated (?) pig, water bu alo, goat; wild animal and fish bones, shells, houses; kiln? Flaked and ground stone axes, adzes, chisels, spades, abraders, spindle whorls; burials with pottery as major grave goods Open sites; ground stone tools; houses, burials with grave goods Dayan Phase IV, Zengpiyan Phase III, b.p. Zengpiyan Phase IV, Dingsishan Phases II and III, b.p. Dayan Phase V, Zengpiyan Phase V, b.p. Dingsishan Phase IV, Xiaojin Phase II, b.p. Sources: Fu 2004; Hunan Institute of Archaeology 1993, 1999; Jiang and Liu Fu and/or roundbottom pot; calcite and quartz as inclusions; cordmark; appliqué and incision; relatively high firing temperature Fu, round-bottom pot; techniques similar to previous ones; walls thinner; only cord-mark present Fine pottery; fu, pot, plates with ring foot, bowls, basins, stands Grayish white ceramic Pebble tools, occurrence of ground stone axe and adze, ground bone and pierced shell tools; wild animal bones and freshwater shells Pebble and ground tools, ground bone and pierced shell tools; wild animal bones and shells; four squatting burials without grave goods but with stones (Zengpiyan); various burials at Dingsishan with limited grave goods Ground stone tools; eight flexed burials with stone, bone, and shell tools as grave goods in Dayan; no pottery buried with the dead Domesticated rice. Well-ground stone tools. Rice grains and phytolith

16 16 asian perspectives. 49(1). spring 2010 Miaoyan, more than 65 percent of animal bones are remains of several species of deer, dominated by sika deer and sambar (Zhang et al :187). The quantity of shell remains increased substantially in Dayan, Zengpiyan, and other deposits dated to after 12,000 years ago, suggesting that shellfish became an important food resource for human beings (Table 4). It seems that there were abundant terrestrial animals and freshwater shellfish as resources for people living in South China after the Last Glacial Maximum. To summarize, the natural context of early pottery in South China was a subtropical to tropical environment with rich and diversified natural resources. The prehistoric residents in this area could have exploited plant and animal species living in di erent habitats and available in di erent seasons. Based on the author s experiments, if a person relied on plant roots (taro, yam, and bamboo shoots, etc.) and shellfish as his/her staple food, he/she only needed to spend about 2 3 hours daily on subsistence activities, and any return from hunting would be an extra bonus (Lu 2006). It seems that people living in South China from the terminal Pleistocene to the early Holocene were a uent foragers supported by abundant and relatively easy access to diversified natural resources, the seasonality of which would have been quite stable. the archaeological context Based on archaeological discoveries to date, the peopling of South China can be traced back to at least the Pleistocene era (Xie 2006). The archaeological remains dated from the Middle to the Upper Pleistocene in South China are characterized by pebble tools made by direct percussion (He 1988), which belonged to the pebble tool industry in the vast areas from the Yangzi River Valley to mainland Southeast Asia and lasted well into the Holocene in South China. Archaeological data presented in this article come primarily from several archaeological sites discovered since the 1980s, and dated from the terminal Pleistocene to the early Holocene in South China, namely the cave sites of Dayan, Liyuzui, Niulandong, Miaoyan, and Zengpiyan in the north, and the shellmidden site Dingsishan in the south (Table 2). All of the cavesitesaresituatedinhillyareas, whereas Dingsishan is located on top of a terrace along the Yong River near the present Nanning City, Guangxi Province. Based on the stratigraphies and findings of these sites, a chronology of the local archaeological cultures in this area can be proposed. The terminal Pleistocene of about 15,000 years ago can be illustrated by the bottom deposit of Dayan, in which unifacial pebble tools produced by direct percussion and a small amount of animal bones and freshwater shells have been discovered. In the succeeding layers dated to between 13,000 and 12,000 years ago, pebble tools still dominated, but grinding occurred as a new technique and was initially used to produce bone and shell implements, associated with two pieces of fired clay. A small amount of animal bone and shell have also been found. This phase is defined as a transitional period from the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, characterized by the occurrence of grinding techniques and fired clay (Fu 2004). Flaked pebble tools and ground bone and pierced shell implements have been found in layers dated to 12,000 and 10,000 years ago in both Dayan and the

17 lu. early pottery in south china 17 bottom layer of Zengpiyan, as well as substantial amount of animal and shell remains, and early pottery (Fu 2004) (Table 2). Thus the toolkit associated with early pottery in South China and adjacent areas consists of pebble tools, ground bone tools, and pierced shell implements. This toolkit dominated the prehistoric cultures in this region from approximately 12,000 to 7000 years ago (Table 4). The author s preliminary use-wear analysis indicatesthatthebonedrillsmighthavebeenusedtodealwithplantandother soft materials (Lu 2003c). Meanwhile, the occurrence of pierced shell implements is also worth noting. Based on ethnographic data in Japan, MacNeish proposed that the pierced shell implements might have been used to cut grass, even rice (MacNeish 1998:19). Recently, rice and millet remains, as well as shell reaping knives, have been found in Taiwan, and a similar function has been assigned to the shell knives (Tsang 2005). Rice phytoliths have been found in Zengpiyan and the early phases of Dayan, but it remains unclear whether rice was collected for food or for other purposes, and the function of the pierced shell implements requires further investigation. Nevertheless, these new implements must have been made in that period to meet new demands for subsistence strategies and/or other purposes. Remains of plants, nuts, and animal bone indicate that the prehistoric groups at this time were mainly hunters and gatherers (Fu 2004; He 1988; Yuan 2000). Two burials have been found in Phase II of the Dayan assemblage, contemporaneous to the fired clay (Fu 2004). No grave goods have been discovered. On the other hand, several natural stones had been placed on the skull and the limbs of the dead (Fu et al. 2001), which may indicate some beliefs or rituals not comprehensible to us at present. This type of burial has also been found in Zengpiyan dated to years ago (Table 4). Grave goods did not occur in the Guilin area in South China until around years ago (Table 4). Whether the presence of grave goods indicates reduced mobility, conceptual changes about death and afterlife, or the emergence of the notion of private ownership, or all of the above; and whether such changes were the results of local development or cultural contact with other areas, remain unclear. Whatever the case, no grave goods have been found prior to 8000 b.p. in the Guilin area. While grave goods have been found in Phase V of the Dayan assemblages, which is dated to about 7000 years ago, the quantity and quality of these grave goods between burials are not significant. Further, archaeological data to date suggest that the toolkits and other remains found in South China from 12,000 to 7000 years ago were without much change except the occurrence of ground stone tools (Table 4), although the techniques of making these tools as well as making pottery somehow developed during this long span of time. In Dayan and Zengpiyan, nospecialtreatments,decorations, or any other special labor/e orts have been detected on any stone or organic implements dated prior to 7000 years ago. Thus, none of them can be identified as bearing special meanings or symbols, which, if present, may indicate the existence of individuals holding special social status. The artifacts found in Dayan and Zengpiyan seem to have been produced by regular methods including direct percussion and/or grinding, and have been used for practical purposes by members of these groups. Therefore, there seems to be no visible evidence for the occurrence

18 18 asian perspectives. 49(1). spring 2010 of stratified societies in South China before 7000 years ago, when early pottery was manufactured in this region. In summary, the above archaeological data indicate that, up to the Middle Holocene or 7000 years ago, the prehistoric societies in northern South China were not stratified, and the early pottery dated to between 12,000 and 10,000 years ago was made by egalitarian societies living in caves and subsisting through hunting and gathering. early pottery in south china The origin and development of pottery from fired clay to shaped vessels in prehistoric South China can be best illustrated by the stratigraphy and associated discoveries in Dayan and Zengpiyan (Table 4). As mentioned above, two pieces of fired clay have been found in Phase II of the Dayan assemblage, one piece being cylindrical and another one dish-like with a concave surface (Fu 2004). Although not vessels, they apparently had been manipulated by human beings into certain shapes and had been fired. Details of these two pieces have not been published, but they apparently manifest an attempt to combine clay, water, and fire to produce a new material, and should be viewed as a prelude to the origin of pottery. After the occurrence of the two fired clay objects, potsherds occurred in Phase III in Dayan and Phase I in Zengpiyan, representing the earliest ceramics in South China to date. Pottery of this initial period is characterized by very thick and crumbled walls up to between 2.9 and 3.6 cm, with un-sieved, often coarse, crushed calcite or quartz as tempering agent, and a cracked surface without intended decoration (Fig. 2). The potsherds are built by hand-pinching, and were fired in temperatures of approximately C, with the earliest ones found in Zengpiyan fired at probably below 250 C (Fig. 2; Wu et al. 2003). The earliest pottery is often plain, but traces of pressed marks of plant stems have been found on certain parts of the surface, which might have been remains of the wiping o or smoothing o e orts made by the prehistoric potters hands, signs that these marks were not intended decoration. All of these characteristics indicate a very initial stage of pottery manufacturing. Based on cross-comparison between potsherds found in the Yangzi River Valley and those in South China, as well as results of radiocarbon dating, the early pottery manufactured in South China is dated to approximately between 12,000 to 11,000 years ago (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003). The quantity of potsherds found in this early stage is often very limited, and only one type of round-bottom pot can be reconstructed, known as a fu or pot in Chinese archaeology (Fig. 2; Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003). To date, this type of vessel is the dominant utensil found in all the aforementioned archaeological assemblages by 7000 years ago in South China. It was not until around years b.p. that other types of pottery vessels occurred in South China, such as jars, plates with a high ring foot, basins, and bowls, the latter three usually used for serving food. This typological assemblage is quite di erent from that in the neighboring Yangzi River Valley, where fu also occurred by 12,000 years ago or earlier as the only vessel (Yuan 2000), but various pots, bowls, dishes, and plates occurred by 8500 years ago (Pei 2000). This ceramic monomorphism in South China will be discussed further in the following sections.

19 Fig. 2. Early pottery found in Zengpiyan, South China. Top: potsherds found in Zengpiyan dated to approximately 12,000 years ago (not to scale). Bottom: restored fu found in Zengpiyan dated to approximately 12,000 years ago (scale 1 : 3). (Courtesy of Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003)

20 20 asian perspectives. 49(1). spring 2010 While potsherds found in Phase III in Dayan and Phase I in Zengpiyan (Table 4) represent the initial phase of pottery manufacturing in South China, potsherds from the ensuing Phase II of the Zengpiyan assemblage bear some advanced characteristics. Slab building occurred as a new technique for vessel construction in this period, and became the major technique for pottery manufacturing in the succeeding Neolithic cultures in the region. The pottery walls were often thinner, and the grains of the tempering agent became smaller, although crushed calcite was still the major material of the latter. The concept of decoration also made its appearance during this period, as the marks on pottery surfaces were no longer wiped o by the potters; further, they seem to be in a relatively regular pattern. Potsherds with similar characteristics have also been found in other areas in northern Guangdong and southern Guangxi, such as in the Niulandong and Dingsishan sites (Fig. 1), representing the second phase of ceramic development in South China. Low relief was present in Dingsishan (Table 4) as a clear indication of decoration. However, when comparing these potsherds found in South China to those found in the Pengtoushan and Bashidang assemblages in the middle Yangzi River Valley, the former still have thicker and more crumbled walls, the inclusions are coarser, and the firing temperature lower. Based on cultural comparison and radiocarbon dating, the second phase of ceramic development in South China should be between approximately 10,000 and 9000 years ago. In summary, archaeological data to date suggest that pottery was manufactured in South China by 12,000 years ago. As the process from fired clay to shaped vessels is clearly illustrated in Dayan, and the potsherds found in Dayan and Zengpiyan bear the most primitive characteristics of ceramics, it seems that South China is one of the places where pottery was indigenously made. After its initial appearance, pottery manufacturing expanded to adjacent areas, and the techniques developed further in the ensuing Neolithic cultures, illustrated by relatively thinner walls, the application of the slab building method, sieved inclusions, comparatively higher firing temperature, and probably the initial occurrence of decoration. However, the typological diversity and technological development of pottery in South China seem to have di ered from that in the Yangzi River Valley until 7000 years ago, when the cultural influences of the latter seem to have arrived in South China (Table 4). While di erent ceramic developments in terms of typological diversity, decoration motifs and manufacturing techniques in South China and the Yangzi River Valley further suggest that pottery was made independently in South China, the causes of this di erence should be examined further. discussion Undoubtedly, the origin of pottery is a significant technological development. It may also indicate changes in other aspects of prehistoric cultures. Recent archaeological discoveries in South China have provided novel information to help us understand not only the chronological origin and development of pottery, but also the impetus, the manufacturing process, and the natural and cultural contexts of this event. Meanwhile, more questions arise from these new discoveries.

21 lu. early pottery in south china 21 Chronology In South China, the majority of early potsherds are from cave sites, and all of the cave sites are located in limestone areas, which is problematic for radiocarbon dating. Samples from all the sites listed in Table 4 have been subjected to 14 Cdating, and some of the results have been published (Table 5), but many of them are not convincing. For example, a shell sample from trench No. 5, Layer 3 [T5 (3)] in Niulandong gave a result of 16,000 years b.p., but a bone sample from the same layer only yields an absolute date of 7910 years b.p. (Table 5). Similar discrepancies can be observed in other dates that were run on bones and shells in Niulandong(Table5).Inanothersite,Miaoyan, dating was run on shell samples only, and some of the dates are not in sequence. While three samples from Layer 2 produce a time range between 13,547 and 12,707 years b.p., one sample from the underlying Layer 3 gives a younger date of 12,630 b.p. (Table 5). Radiocarbon dating in limestone areas has been troublesome since its first application. In an attempt to solve this problem, the laboratories of the Institute of Archaeology CASS, and the Archaeology Department,BeijingUniversityconducted detailed sample gathering and testing in South China in the mid-1980s. The outcome is that 14 C dates run on freshwater shells often produce much older readings than the true age of the samples, mainly due to the contamination of dead radiocarbon (Yuan 1993). On the other hand, dating on grass, charcoal, and bones of animals fed on terrestrial resources may be close to their true ages; however, dating on bones of animals fed on water resources is also problematic (Yuan 1993). As the researchers were not certain about the standard di erences between results tested on shells and that on other materials, no fixed value of adjustments were provided, although it wasproposedthatdatesonshellsamples could be a few hundred to 2500 years older then they actually were (Yuan 1993). Up to that time, there were no reliable solutions for the problem of radiocarbon dating in limestone areas (Yuan 1993). As discussed above, the dates testing on shells in Niulandong is more than 7000 years older than that on bones, which means that the deviation on shell samples could be much greater than 2500 years if the dates on bones are to be trusted (Table 5). Further, not all bones are reliable. As large amounts of shell have been found in all of the cave sites in South China, it is highly probable that freshwater shellfish were a staple food of prehistoric human groups living in limestone areas from the beginning to the Middle Holocene. Based on the aforementioned research outcome, bones of humans ingesting freshwater species can be problematic, as they tend to yield dates older than their true age. On the other hand, terrestrial animal bones may be more reliable (Yuan 1993). Given the relative reliability of radiocarbon dates run on terrestrial animal bones, the six dates from Layers 3 8 in Trench No. 5 in the Niulandong assemblage may be accurate. These six dates and their corresponding layers are consistent, and the dates are in a good sequence (Table 6). However, with the uncertainty of dating in limestone areas in mind, the excavators of Niulandong proposed that Phase I belonged to the Upper Palaeolithic epoch, and should be between 12,000 and 11,000 years ago; Phase II should be Mesolithic and dated between 11,000 and 10,000 years ago; and Phase III should be Neolithic and dated between 10,000 and 8000 years ago (Yingdeshi Bowuguan deng 1999). As

22 Table 5. Radiocarbon Dates of Some Archaeological Sites in South China (half-life 5730) site cultural phase testing samples and methods or layer bone shells lab. and 14 C dates b.p. (un-calibrated) source Niulandong Phase I T5 (7) animal bone, conventional KWG, 10,780 G 220 Yingde City Museum et al T5 (8) animal bone, conventional KWG, 11,320 G 240 Ibid. T7 (3) animal bone, conventional KWG, 12,410 G 250 Ibid. Phase II T5 (5) animal bone, conventional KWG, 9320 G 110 Ibid. T5 (6) animal bone, conventional KWG, 10,320 G 200 Ibid. T1 (6) shell, conventional BK, 18,105 G 200 Ibid. Phase III(1) T5 (3) animal bone, conventional KWG, 7910 G 100 Ibid. T5 (3) shell, conventional KWG, 16,780 G 300 Ibid. T5 (4) animal bone, conventional KWG, 8940 G 100 Ibid. T9 (3) bone, conventional KWG, 8150 G 120 Yingde City Museum et al Locality 2, shell, conventional BK, 15,560 G 150 Ibid. T1 (4) shell, conventional BK, 16,235 G 100 Ibid. T3 (2) shell, conventional BK, 17,525 G 200 Ibid. T9 (3) shell, conventional KWG, 14,560 G 350 Ibid. Phase III(2) T9 (2) bone, conventional KWG, 7460 G 100 Ibid. Locality 1, shell, conventional BK, 10,440 G 100 Ibid. Locality 3, shell, conventional BK, 9310 G 80 Ibid. T1 (1) shell, conventional BK, 11,870 G 100 Ibid. Miaoyan Layer 6 Shell, method unknown BK, 20,920 G 430 Chen 1999 Layer 5 Shell, method unknown BK, 18,140 G 320 Ibid. Shell, conventional ZK, 17,238 G 237 Ibid. Layer 4 Shell, method unknown BK, 13,710 G 270 Ibid. Layer 3 Shell, method unknown BK, 12,630 G 450 Ibid. Layer 2 Shell, method unknown BK, 12,730 G 370 Ibid. Shell, conventional ZK, 12,707 G 155 Ibid. Shell, conventional ZK, 13,547 G 168 Ibid. (Continued)

23 Liyuzui Phase I Shell, conventional PV, 7820 G 100 Yuan 1993 Phase II, upper Human bone, conventional PV, 10,510 G 150 Ibid. Human bone, conventional PV, 11,450 G 150 Ibid. Phase II Shell, conventional BK, 12,880 G 220 Ibid. Shell, conventional PV, 18,560 G 300 Ibid. Shell, conventional PV, 21,020 G 450 Ibid. Phase II, lower Shell, conventional BK, 23,330 G 250 Ibid. Dingsishan Phase II Shell, conventional ZK, 10,365 G 113 Fu 2004 Abbreviations of laboratories: BK Laboratory of Archaeology Department, Beijing University; ZK Laboratory of Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Science; PV Laboratory of Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology; KWG Laboratory of the Guangzhou Geographic Research Institute.

24 24 asian perspectives. 49(1). spring 2010 Table C Dates from Trench No. 5 of Niulandong, Guangdong stratigraphic units radiocarbon dates (b.p.) calibrated dates (b.p.)* cultural phase T5 (8) KWG, 11,320 G Phase I T5 (7) KWG, 10,780 G Phase I T5 (6) KWG, 10,320 G Phase II T5 (5) KWG, 9320 G Phase II T5 (4) KWG, 8940 G Phase III (1) T5 (3) KWG, 7910 G Phase III (1) * Using Stuiver et al. 1998a, Calibration Program 4.3 at calibrated by the author. potsherds have been found in Phase III, its presence in the present Guangdong Province, or eastern South China, can be dated to 10,000 years ago. These dates may also serve as a reference for other archaeological remains in South China. Based on structural analysis, potsherds found in Niulandong might have belonged to the second phase of early pottery in South China, contemporaneous to that found in Phase II of the Zengpiyan assemblage. The radiocarbon dates in Niulandong are consistent with this proposal. When carrying out excavation at Zengpiyan in 2003, we designed the sampling strategy to collect three sets of samples charcoal, bone, and shell from narrow cross sections of the stratigraphy for 14 C dating in order to tackle the problem of dating in limestone areas, andweplannedonsendingthesamples from the same layers to two to three laboratories for testing to compare the results. However, this plan could not be fully implemented due to the insu - ciency or poor quality of bones found in many cultural layers at Zengpiyan. Eventually, only samples of charcoal and shells have been dated, and the results and corresponding cultural layers and depth are listed in Table 7. While these 14 C dates illustrate a chronological framework for the Zengpiyan archaeological assemblage from approximately 12,000 to 7000 years ago, there are still problems. The first one is the discrepancy between the stratigraphic depth and the 14 C dates of some samples. For example, a charcoal sample from Layer DT6 (27) tested by the laboratory of the Australian National University yields a reading of 10,520 G 280 years ago, but another charcoal sample tested by the same laboratory from the layer beneath, DT6 (28), yields a much younger reading of 9130 G 160 b.p. (Table 7). The results of some shell samples have the same problem. For instance, the reading of two shell samples in Layer DT4 (25) are much older than the shell sample from Layer 26 below (Table 7). Shells from Layer DT6 (27) at the depth of cm yield a chronological reading of 10,996 G 68 years bp, but another two samples from DT4 (20) at the depth of cm provided dates of almost the same age (Table 7). The second problem is the discrepancy between dates resulting from shell samples and charcoal samples. It is apparent that the dates obtained on shells are about years older than the majority of the charcoal samples (Table 7). If the dating results on charcoal are more reliable (Yuan 1993), then the dates on shells are not accurate. The above problems are not unique in Zengpiyan, as the recent 14 Cresultsat Yuchanyan (Boaretto et al. 2009) show similar problems. For instance, two char-

25 lu. early pottery in south china 25 coal samples from Layer 3E of about 254 cm deep in Yuchanyan are dated to 11,855 G 50 and 12,735 G 70 b.p. respectively, which are almost the same or even younger than the dates obtained on charcoal and bone samples from about 129 to 217 cm deep. Further, the charcoal sample RTB 5471 from the deepest layer at cm of T5 is dated to 12,825 G 50 b.p., which is at least years younger than several samples (Nos. RTB 5115, 5463, 5464, 5465, 5466, and 5470) from layers at a depth of around 252 to 264 cm (for the original data, please see Table 3 in Boaretto et al. 2009). The author of this paper is not a 14 C dating expert and cannot provide a full analysis of this methodological issue, butitisobviousthatsamplesdatedoncharcoal and/or bones in limestone areas are not without problems, and that 14 C dating in limestone areas of China requires much more study. In addition, it must be emphasized that the archaeologists ability to recognize di erent cultural layers and deposits is essential for the reliability of absolute dates, particularly in caves. The stratigraphy of cave deposits can be very complicated, as deposits of di erent periods could have been accumulated at di erent locations at the same horizontal level (or similar depth), as prehistoric peoples of di erent times might have occupied varying locations inside the cave. If such di erences have not been detected during excavation and sample gathering, it is possible that the samples perceived from the same cultural layer might in fact have been from di erent periods. Consequently, absolute dates tested on these samples could be misleading. To reduce possible errors, sample gathering for absolute dating should be conducted within a narrow cross section of one trench, and samples should be collectedfromasmanylayersaspossiblewithinthiscrosssection. Therefore, in addition to radiocarbon dating, typological and structural analysis of artifacts integrated with cross-cultural comparison, particularly on pottery items, are also necessary for establishing the chronology of both ceramics and archaeological cultures in limestone areas. The tentative chronology listed in Table 4 is primarily based on comparisons between pottery found in South China and in theyangzirivervalley,particularlyinopensitesalongrivers,suchasthepengtoushan and Bashidang sites (Table 4). The major criteria of such analysis and comparison are pottery structures, formation methods, the thickness of walls, materials, and processing techniques of the tempering agents, the presence or absence of intended decoration, firing temperatures, and other attributes that may indicate di erent stages of pottery development. If similar attributes are found in archaeological sites in both the Yangzi River Valley and South China, these sites may be dated to similar periods. 2 The Impetus for the Origin of Pottery As mentioned in the introduction of this article, several theories and hypotheses have been proposed concerning the origin of pottery (Ikawa-Smith 1976; Lu 1999; Rice 1999; Tsutsumi 2000). The occurrence of pottery in north China and the Yangzi River Valley might have been related to wild grass collection and exploitation (Lu 1999), as early pottery found in the Yangzi River Valley (Xianrendong and Yuchanyan) was in association with rice remains. Whether this is also the case in South China (Niulandong and Zengpiyan) requires further study (Tables 1 and 2), as recent phytolith analysis conducted at Zengpiyan and Dayan

26 Table 7. Radiocarbon Dates of Zengpiyan (half-life 5568) depth (cm) layers in grid DT4 layers in grid DT6 layers in grid BT3 layers in grid BT6 material and method lab. and 14 C dates (b.p.) material and method lab. and 14 C dates (b.p.) calibrated b.c. (68.2%) cultural phase Charcoal Shells Phase I DT6 (32) Conventional ZK, 11,255 G 75 11,272 11, DT6 (31) Conventional ZK, 11,596 G 91 11,602 11, DT4 (31) Conventional ZK, 11,000 G ,084 10,915 DT4 (31) Conventional ZK, 11,235 G ,272 11,140 DT4 (31) AMS BA, 9380 G DT6 (29) AMS BA, 11,960 G ,400 11, DT6 (28) Conventional ZK, 11,575 G ,599 11,350 DT6 (28) Conventional ZK, 11,438 G 85 11,422 11,274 DT6 (28) AMS BA, 9380 G DT6 (28) AMS BA, 9440 G DT6 (28) AMS ANU, 9350 G DT6 (28) AMS ANU, 9130 G DT4 (30) AMS BA, 9770 G DT6 (27) AMS ANU, 10,520 G ,950 10,000 Phase II DT6 (27) Conventional ZK, 10,996 G 68 10,999 10, DT6 (25) Conventional ZK, 10,944 G ,051 10, DT6 (24) AMS ANU, 9060 G DT6 (21) Conventional ZK, 10,553 G 93 10,770 10, DT6 (19) AMS ANU, 8770 G DT4 (28) AMS BA, 9490 G DT6 (16) AMS ANU, 9270 G DT4 (27) AMS BA, 9180 G Phase III DT4 (26) Conventional ZK, 10,571 G 63 10,802 10,453 DT4 (26) AMS ANU, 9730 G DT4 (26) AMS BA, 9210 G (Continued)

27 DT6 (15) Conventional ZK, 10,828 G 99 10,951 10, DT4 (25) Conventional ZK, 10,799 G 83 10,927 10,833 DT4 (25) Conventional ZK, 11,093 G 85 11,132 10, DT6 (13) AMS ANU, 9490 G DT4 (24) AMS BA, 8460 G DT4 (23) AMS BA, G 84 10,941 10, DT4 (22) Conventional ZK, 10,599 G ,847 10, DT4 (21) Conventional ZK, 10,610 G 82 10,846 10,460 DT4 (21) AMS BA, 10,160 G 80 10, DT4 (20) Conventional ZK, 10,863 G 77 10,943 10,870 DT4 (20) Conventional ZK, 10,975 G 84 11,025 10,902 DT4 (20) AMS BA, 8970 G DT4 (19) Conventional ZK, 10,755 G 70 10,903 10,807 DT4 (19) AMS BA, 9040 G DT4 (18) AMS BA, 8890 G DT4 (17) Conventional ZK, 10,628 G 59 10,845 10,698 DT4 (17) Conventional ZK, 10,949 G ,026 10,883 DT4 (17) AMS BA, 8870 G DT4 (16) AMS BA, 9070 G DT6 (11) Conventional ZK, 10,738 G ,904 10,744 Phase IV DT4 (15) Conventional ZK, 10,633 G 56 10,843 10,710 DT4 (15) AMS BA, 9010 G DT4 (14) AMS BA, 6500 G DT4 (13) Conventional ZK, 10,588 G 56 10,817 10,461 DT4 (13) AMS BA, 9010 G DT4 (13) AMS ANU, 9570 G BT2 (13) Conventional ZK, 10,095 G 70 10, DT4 (12) AMS BA, 9040 G DT4 (12) Conventional ZK, 10,640 G ,881 10,448 DT4 (12) AMS BA, 8740 G BT2 (6) Conventional ZK, 8998 G Phase V BT3 (7) AMS BA, 8790 G BT3 (7) Conventional ZK, 8538 G (Continued)

28 Table 7 (Continued) depth (cm) layers in grid DT4 layers in grid DT6 layers in grid BT3 layers in grid BT6 material and method lab. and 14 C dates (b.p.) material and method lab. and 14 C dates (b.p.) calibrated b.c. (68.2%) cultural phase BT3 (6) Conventional ZK, 8342 G Phase V BT3 (4) Conventional ZK, 7783 G BT2 (5) Conventional ZK, 8602 G BT3 (5) Conventional ZK, 7979 G BT3 (2) Conventional ZK, 1655 G 35 a.d Historic BT2 (3) Conventional ZK, 717 G 41 a.d BT2 (2) AMS ANU, 1010 G 90 a.d Source: Institute of Archaeology CASS et al

29 lu. early pottery in south china 29 in Guangxi, and another site Xiantouling in Guangdong, seems to suggest that rice was exploited in South China as fuel when early pottery was produced (Lu 2009a, b). On the other hand, shells have been found in association with early pottery in many archaeological sites dated to the early Holocene from the Yellow and the Yangzi River Valleys to South China, except for the sites of Hutouliang and Dingsishan (Tables 1 and 2). Potsherds found in all the sites are reconstructed to conform to the round-bottom fu, except the potsherds found in Hutouliang, whichappeartorepresentaflat-bottomvessel probably used for storage (Guo and Li 2000). Based on our observation and a cooking experiment, a flat-bottomed pot can stand stably on the ground, and would be ideal for storage. However, it is very hard for a vessel to remain balanced when placed over stones of di erent height for cooking, as the flat bottom cannot adjust well to the di erent heights of supporting stones. Further, if the vessel was not constructed properly, the joint between the flat base and the body could shrink and crack when heated. On the other hand, the round-bottom fu cannot remain stable on the ground, and therefore it is not very convenient for storage. However, its hemispherical bottom can adjust to stones of di erent heights and remain balanced when placed over stones for cooking, and its round structure prevents it from easy cracking when heated by fire. As charcoal residues are often found on the exterior bottom of fu, it seems that the major function of fu is cooking. If this is the case, then the dominance of fu in early pottery vessels found in different environments and prehistoric cultures in South China may indicate that the need for cooking was the primary impetus to the origin of pottery, similar to that in Japan (Aikens 1995; Ikawa-Smith 1976; Lu 2001). It is notable that shell remains are absent in archaeological deposits dated from the Middle to the Upper Pleistocene, but small quantities of shells have been found in deposits dated toward the Holocene, and the majority of archaeological sites dated from the early to the Middle Holocene in South China contain large quantities of shells (Tables 2 and 4). Clearly, from approximately 12,000 years ago, shells became one of the major food resources for the local inhabitants. Meanwhile, pottery also occurred approximately in the same time framework. Is this a coincidence? Does the occurrence of pottery have any relation to shell consumption? To examine this issue, we need to know how shellfish is consumed. Several species of freshwater shellfish are still consumed in contemporary South China, and are considered to be a tasty dish.today,shellfishiscookedinvarious ways (boiling, steaming, stir-frying, etc.) and the flesh is either sucked out or picked out by using a small stick, or for clams, chopsticks. According to the author s experiments, when shellfish are alive, they can quickly withdraw inside their shells when touched, so it is impossible to either suck or use a stick to pick the flesh out. If one wants to eat an uncooked freshwater shellfish, one has to crush the shell. When doing so, it is unavoidable that both the shell and the flesh are broken into small pieces, and it is troublesome to retrieve and consume the latter. Furthermore, there are various parasites in freshwater shellfish, among them schistosomes (i.e., tiny flatworms living in the blood of mammals and birds), whichcausehumanschistosomiasis,aconditionthatcouldreadilybefatalinprehistoric periods. Uncooked or not fully cooked shellfish can also cause diarrhea or

30 30 asian perspectives. 49(1). spring 2010 other digestive problems. In e ect, shellfish must be cooked before consuming them in substantial quantities. Another relevant issue is how shellfish might conceivably have been cooked in pre-modern times. Unlike animal meat, shellfish cannot be hung and baked over fire. Unlike grass seeds, shellfish cannot be ground and baked on stone slabs. The most e cient and easiest way to cook shellfish is to put them into a container and boil them with water. Apparently, the need to consume freshwater shellfish from the terminal Pleistocene to the early Holocene in South China demanded the creation of a new instrument, a cooking vessel, which could withstand fire and contain water and shellfish at the same time. It is highly possible that such a requirement for shellfish processing was the impetus for the origin of pottery in this region, although other subsistence-related needs such as food and water storage and cooking other types of food cannot be ruled out (Lu 2001). According to archaeological data found in Dayan and Niulandong, the majority of shells found in deposits without pottery had been crushed, while the majority of those found in association with fired clay or potsherds remained intact. This clearly indicates a change in shellfish consumption along with the occurrence of pottery. The small amount of crushed shells found in Phase I of the Dayan site may indicate an initial attempt to exploit shellfish at the terminal Pleistocene by breaking the shells and picking the flesh out. During the transitional period of approximately 13,000 to 12,000 years ago, shellfish was consumed in substantial quantities and the means of consumption seems to have changed, as shells found in this period were intact (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003; Lu 2001). Our experience indicates shellfish must be cooked before being eaten. The occurrence of pottery and intact shells in the same archaeological layers in Dayan and Zengpiyandatedto12,000yearsagoindicatesthatpotterywasusedforcooking shellfish in South China (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003; Lu 2001), as well as for other functions. In South China, particularly in areas inhabited by minorities, bamboo culms (i.e., the jointed hollow stems of the plant) are still used to cook rice, meat, fish, and other dishes. The culms are first cut down, then cut into sections at each joint end. Food ingredients and water are placed into the hollow culms and sealed with clay if needed. The bamboo culms with the ingredients inside are then placed over fire. When the cooking is finished, the bamboo culm is often charred and hastobediscarded.theoretically,shellfishcanbecookedinthisway,butonlya limited amount can be cooked each time, and the labor cost from chopping down bamboo culms to cut up sections is also considerable, as each section can only be used once. Although ethnographic data can only be taken as a reference, and we cannot tell whether shellfish was actually cooked in prehistoric South China in bamboo culms based on the current archaeological evidence, we can however argue that it is inconvenient and too labor-intensive to use bamboo culms for shellfish cooking and that pottery is a much more technologically e cient choice. The appearance of pottery technology seems to have accelerated the consumption of shellfish, as large quantities of shells and pottery have been found in many archaeological sites in South China and adjacent areas from approximately 10,000 years ago. The major reason for such popularity of shellfish consumption could be the e ciency of shellfish gathering. The author s experiment in South China suggests that more than 340 shellfish can be gathered in 20 minutes, or more than

31 lu. early pottery in south china shellfish in one hour; from which about 460 grams of shellfish flesh can be obtained, which can provide 322 kcal of energy (Lu 2006). Apparently, the return of shellfish gathering is quite high, and with a ceramic cooking vessel, shellfish became a very attractive food in prehistoric South China. Of course, shellfish would not have been the only item cooked in pottery vessels in South China. Many food ingredients need to be cooked before consumption, but some of these ingredients such as taro, yams, or animal meat, can be baked over fire and do not necessarily require a cooking utensil. Grass seeds could be another ingredient that requires a cooking vessel in China s context (Lu 1999), but not many grass seeds have been found in archaeological deposits in South China, indicating that this type of food was probably not favored due to the extremely low return of harvesting (Lu 2006). On the other hand, the cooking fu found in the Yangzi River Valley might have been used to cook rice, as rice remains have been found in these sites (Table 4) (Lu 1999). The Occurrence of Intentional Decoration In South China, the earliest pottery was plain, without decoration. However, cord-marking soon appeared in this region. An experiment with pottery manufacturing was conducted in South China from 2000 to 2002 in order to investigate the techniques and process of making pottery. Preliminary results of this experiment reveal that clay near Dayan, Zengpiyan, and Dingsishan in Guangxi can be used to make pottery, and calcite and quartz as tempering agents are easily located in limestone areas (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003). According to the experiment, the walls of vessels built by hand pinching and with coarse inclusions are often very thick and uneven; a further forming step is thus required to shape and firm the walls. This can be done by using a small pebble and a wood or bamboo rod tightly wrapped by twisted grass stems (Fig. 3). The potter holds the pebble inside the vessel in one hand, and the grass-wrapped rod outside the vessel in another hand, then evens out and modifies the walls by rolling the rod on the surface, while using the pebble inside the vessel to support the wall against the pressure (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003). The experiment suggests that using a grass-wrapped stick may be a necessary component of pottery manufacture by hand pinching. Since this is not a decorative process, the potter can roll the rod toward various directions at his/her discretion, or the potter can roll the rod more than once at any point, leaving a multi-directionally pressed cord-mark on the surface. The marks produced by the experiment often overlap with each other and without observable patterns, and appear exactly the same as those observed on the surface of the early pottery dated to about 12,000 years ago found in Dayan and Zengpiyan (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003; see Fig. 3). Why was it necessary to use grass stems to wrap the wood or bamboo rod in this process? According to the experiment, a wood or bamboo rod without grass stemswastoosmoothandwasoftenstickyonthesurfaceofthedampvessel.itis comparatively di cult to roll such a rod freely on the vessel surface; further, the rod may stick o the surface clay and reduce the strength of the wall (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003). These problems were solved by using a rod wrapped by twisted grass stems, as the latter reduced the size of the interface

32 32 asian perspectives. 49(1). spring 2010 Fig. 3. Cord-mark as remains of pottery formation process. Top left: potsherd dated to approximately 10,000 years ago with flattened marks; Top right: replica produced by manufacturing experiment (not to scale). Bottom: wood rods wrapped by twisted grass stems and used for pottery manufacturing experiment (not to scale). (Courtesy of Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003) between the wet clay and the rod, and facilitated better movement of the former. MacNeish hypothesized that the rod was probably dampened when used on the vessel (MacNeish et al : 24). However, the experiment indicates that dampening is not required (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003). As mentioned above, it has been observed that such marks on the surface of the earliest potsherds in South China had often been wiped or smoothened by human hands, suggesting that the potter had no intention of letting the mark remain

33 lu. early pottery in south china 33 Fig. 4. A piece of pottery built by slab building, with flattened cord-mark presses on the surface of two overlying slabs. (Courtesy of Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003) visible after the completion of the process (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003). In addition, such cord-marks shows no observable patterns, and reveal no cognitive intention or e orts for aesthetic presentation. Further, this type of cordmarking has been observed on both the interior and the exterior of the vessels, and on both sides of the clay slabs when slab building was used to construct vessels (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003; Fig. 4). All these manifestations of cord-marking on the earliest pottery found in South China appear to not represent intentional decoration, but instead are likely the remnants of a manufacturing process used to strengthen the walls of the vessels. Cord-marking, however, did eventually become a major decorative motif. On the surface of pottery dated to between 10,000 and 9000 years ago in South China, there are no traces of potters hands for wiping or smoothing the cordmarks. Furthermore, the cord-marks dated to this period are better organized and they present certain patterns and directions, although some of them are still multi-directional (Fig. 5). The experiment suggests that cord-marking found in Phase II of the Zengpiyan assemblage was probably still produced by rolling rods wrapped by grass stems, but the aforementioned phenomenon seems to suggest that the potters in this period intended to keep the marks, and began to convert the mark into a purposeful decoration (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al.

34 34 asian perspectives. 49(1). spring 2010 Fig. 5. Potsherds with non-flattened cord mark found in Zengpiyan, phase II, dated to approximately 11,000 10,000 years ago (scale 1 :1.6). (Courtesy of Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003) 2003). According to the author s observation, some decoration motifs such as the basket or the straight line motifs found in Neolithic cultures dated to the Middle Holocene in South China are developed from regularizing and re-patterning cord-marks, although the construction method might have di ered significantly from that of the earliest pottery. Therefore, marks on the pottery surface dated to di erent periods may be able to tell us more about the cognitive aspect of prehistoric human beings with respect to the occurrence and development of aesthetic presentation and decoration for pottery. The cord-marking found on the surface of the earliest pottery in